Melee cavalry is underpowered at the moment (Suggestions updated)

Users who are viewing this thread

Dr-Shinobi

giphy.gif
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
1: Because that's how an argument works. You're claiming that everyone else is wrong and that cavalry were actually super weak in real life in Bannerlord's time period, and if you're going to make that statement it's up to you to provide proof. I've already provided plenty of proof of cavalry charges being enormously effective against infantry and resulting in victory.

Well if that's how argument works, then you tell me all the battles in the period 900-1100 where cavalry won first. You can't, because you don't know all the battles that happened in that period.

Your request was nonsensical strawman.

And no, that's not how argument works anyway, even if one knew all the battles that were fought.

2: Sure. I didn't say they intended to lose. But how is that relevant to the discussion? If anything, the fact they didn't intend to lose and were overconfident is a strong indicator that people generally considered mounted cavalry charges to be quite an effective way of winning battles.

And fact that English have dismounted and did not intend to loose would then be strong indicator that people generally considered infantry to be quite an effective way of winning battles against cavalry.

Your argument works both ways, or in other words, it does not work.

Also, more importantly: Battles from the 1300s, with 200 years advancement of military technology and tactics, are largely irrelevant to discussions about Bannerlord's 1000s setting.

There was no advancement during those 200 years that would allow horse to impale itself on a spear point and live. Those battles are perfectly relevant because there was no principal change in how heavy cavalry fought. They still rode horses, wore armor and used lances. Armor might have been better, lances longer but so were armor and pikes of the infantry.

3: Nobody is saying cavalry charges didn't exist before the 1000s. I am saying that the level of power that could be achieved through a cavalry charge had not been seen up to that point. That's why Byzantine Emperor Manuel I went to the trouble of retraining all his cataphracts in "Frankish-style" couched lance techniques, because they were so effective.

What level of power will make horse impale itself on a spear point? None. You are ignoring basic fact, that horse will not willingly impale itself. And I have backed that up by actual historical source. The only answer to that that you have provided so far is a video of reenactors jumping around with broomsticks.

Couched lance, bend lance, square lance ...makes no difference.

I like how in your version of real life, some of the most elite troops in the world dedicated their lives to practicing something that was apparently super ineffective!

And I like how you put words in to my mouth that I newer said. I newer said cavalry charges were super ineffective. You're lying. I said frontal charges against determined and disciplined infantry were usually ineffective.


Norman cavalry attacks the Anglo-Saxon shield wall at the Battle of Hastings as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. The lances are held with a one-handed over-the-head grip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance

No, Norman cavalry at Hastings did not use couched lance. Holding lance in the underhand grip is not the same as couched lance.

But then question is if you can define polearms Normans have used at Hastings as lances to begin with. Polearm that you can use in one hand overhead grip can't be defined as lance in the modern sense. And historically there is no strict line between lance and cavalry spear. Word lance was originally used to describe javelin or light throwing spear.

5: If each charge gradually wears down the stamina and morale of the infantry on the ground until they finally break and run, and forces them to hunker down in a single place, and thus eventually wins the battle then it's not a failure, it's a success.

Which part of "until Normans fooled English to disband their formation by faking retreat or until English king received arrow in to the head, depending on which source you believe" you did not understand?

Norman cavalry charges failed. All of them.

The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left.[97] A rumour started that the duke had been killed, which added to the confusion. The English forces began to pursue the fleeing invaders, but William rode through his forces, showing his face and yelling that he was still alive.[98] The duke then led a counter-attack against the pursuing English forces; some of the English rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed.[97]

It is not known whether the English pursuit was ordered by Harold or if it was spontaneous.

A lull probably occurred early in the afternoon, and a break for rest and food would probably have been needed.[99] William may have also needed time to implement a new strategy, which may have been inspired by the English pursuit and subsequent rout by the Normans. If the Normans could send their cavalry against the shield wall and then draw the English into more pursuits, breaks in the English line might form.[101] William of Poitiers says the tactic was used twice. Although arguments have been made that the chroniclers' accounts of this tactic were meant to excuse the flight of the Norman troops from battle, this is unlikely as the earlier flight was not glossed over. It was a tactic used by other Norman armies during the period.[99][r] Some historians have argued that the story of the use of feigned flight as a deliberate tactic was invented after the battle; however most historians agree that it was used by the Normans at Hastings.[102]


You can read rest here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings#Beginning_of_the_battle

It's a typical example of how cavalry charges against competent and determined infantry were ineffective. Normans have to pretend to be defeated and flee to fool English in to breaking their formation to defeat them. In other words, the exact opposite of what you claim. Norman cavalry did not win the battle of Hastings by charging English infantry, Norman cavalry FLED from English infantry to win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Lake_of_Antioch

Why did you cut that quote? Let me ques: cos the rest of it does not fit your argument?:

...only 700 total (many mounted on pack animals and oxen), as most of the horses had succumbed to starvation during the lengthy siege.

Do you actually have a source or are you just going to keep accusing people of pulling numbers out of thin air while doing it yourself?

Bohemond’s strategy was dictated by a logistical constraint: Most of the knights lacked horses. Reasonable estimates of the number of animals available to the Crusaders for the final battle range between 200 and 600. Even accepting the higher number, such a small force of mounted knights couldn’t possibly decide the outcome of the forthcoming battle. Thus it fell to the infantry to accomplish what foot soldiers on the battlefields of Western Europe rarely had—to attack and defeat the enemy.

https://www.historynet.com/the-crucible-of-antioch-the-pivotal-clash-of-the-first-crusade.htm

Moreover:

The Crusaders’ pursuit was limited by their lack of horses. They virtually annihilated the Muslim light infantry and camp followers, but most of the Turkish cavalry got away.

To sum it up:

A. You got numbers wrong.

B. You have misinterpreted the whole battle as 700 Crusader cavalry charge defeating 10,000 Turkish infantry. In reality 20,000 Crusader infantry backed by couple of knights mounted on oxes and pack animals have charged Turkish cavalry and light infantry (mostly archers).

7: What BS are you spouting? The guy at the front was sent FLYING. At least 4 other people got bowled over by horses as well.

Not a single man on that video was bowled over by horse. I already posted frame shots to debunk that video elsewhere before, so i am not going to repeat myself. Anybody can confirm that by watching that video in slow mo or by frames. The first guy who for some irrational reason run up front was bowled over by the knee of the rider, horse barely touched him. Rest of them fell over themselves as they were busy getting out of the horses way.

Most significantly, those that steeped away from the path of the first horses then pilled up in front of the horses in the back. At which point those horses should have actually collided in to the men. And yet they did not. Horses refused to collide in to mass of men and stopped.

8: They look literally just as threatening as 90% of the spears that people are equipped with in Bannerlord, and you're also refusing to acknowledge that not all infantry in bannerlord even have spears, and none of them have super long pikes as were used in the 1300s and onward.

No, you're the only one who feels threatened by broomsticks.

It's clear that they should represent actual spears in that reenactment. Only problem is that horses don't know that.

9: Mental slip since I associate his name with "The Prince", I knew it was a different book. Anyway, Machiavelli wrote Art of War in the 1500s. The world had fully adapted to the most effective possible way of dealing with cavalry by using VERY long pikes, hence the Pike and Shot era. But in the 1000s, and in Bannerlord itself, such super-long pikes were not a common battlefield weapon at all.

And heavy cavalry used very long lances. In 1500s, heavy cavalry was at the pike of it's power. As is common with you, you don't know what you're talking about:

Armoured cavalry, in the form of the gendarme, was at its highest as a proportion of the total number of combatants in many Renaissance armies, especially in France. Other Western European states also used heavy cavalry very often, such as Spain and the Holy Roman Empire in the Italian Wars.

North-Central and Eastern Europe saw the emergence of winged hussars that proved a decisive factor in the territorial gains of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and in its wars with Sweden, Muscovy and the Ottoman Turks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cavalry#Renaissance_to_20th_century

France entered the sixteenth century with its gendarme companies being the largest and most respected force of heavy cavalry in Europe, feared for their powerful armament, reckless courage and esprit de corps.[10] As the fifteenth century waned, so did the tactical practices of the Hundred Years War, and the gendarmes of the sixteenth century returned to fighting exclusively on horseback, generally in a very thin line (en haye), usually two or even just one rank deep, so as to maximize the number of lances being set upon the enemy target at once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_(historical)#Gendarmes_in_battle_in_the_early_sixteenth_century

Therefore, horses refusing to charge a super-long braced pikewall in the 1500s is not relevant to a discussion about a game set in the 1000s where you don't have super-long pikes and you can't brace them.

You still failed to explain how impaling itself on a long pike and short pike makes any difference to the horse.

The amazing thing here is that you actually think it's okay that highest-tier Vlandian cavalry take multiple attempts to even kill the ****tiest, weakest looters in the game. Somehow to you that's a great state of affairs, and you'll clutch at every straw you can to defend it.

No, I know for a fact that it does not take highest-tier Vlandian cavalry multiple attempts to kill the ****tiest, weakest looters in the game. Vlandian banner knight will one shoot any looter, given he have space and terrain to gain decent speed and does not miss. In fact Vlandian banner knight will one shoot mid tier infantry if it uses couched lance.
 
Last edited:

Dr-Shinobi

You two should start your own history show on discovery channel, but i see that hruza has some experience in game while the other one just sees what he wants to see even if some is correct its only parts of it
tenor.gif
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
You two should start your own history show on discovery channel, but i see that hruza has some experience in game while the other one just sees what he wants to see even if its slightly correct

Yea, you have already posted several videos of cavalry one shooting infantry in this very thread yet here were go again and again: "Vlandian elite cavalry can't one shoot looters" or something along those lines .... 🙄

I wonder if those people come here with some obsessive Banerlordfobia and then make up the fact to fit their beliefs.
 

Dr-Shinobi

Yea, you have already posted several videos of cavalry one shooting infantry in this very thread yet here were go again and again: "Vlandian elite cavalry can't one shoot looters" or something along those lines .... 🙄

I wonder if those people come here with some obsessive Banerlordfobia and then make up the fact to fit their beliefs.
Personally i think they only see one thing then sticks with it, then dont play the game as much either to see the whole thing. Mostly also i think that they are not looking at the AI but themselves most of the time as it comes natural when concentrating, then skip the AI combat.
I mean i had one guy crying over one handed spear and he didnt even played with it long enough. Like he just tried it out then calling it weak and that one decision was absolute...Sure i could understand those who wants spears to be like real spear fighting in "real life" and all but thats just being picky.
So i tried it out since i havent before, to then finding out that its a damn formidable weapon and one i damn enjoyed playing with, even if they buffed the horses and their armor to oblivion :wink: But its ok since now we sit here discussing if they are weak or not....
But it doesnt mean they dont have issues. AI in general, CAV as well as INF have problems with tactically choosing targets at times and can be locking on to one that isnt the best choice at the time, hens they do stupid **** or cant reach them
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
Personally i think they only see one thing then sticks with it, then dont play the game as much either to see the whole thing. Mostly also i think that they are not looking at the AI but themselves most of the time as it comes natural when concentrating, then skip the AI combat.
I mean i had one guy crying over one handed spear and he didnt even played with it all the way.Like he just tried it out then calling it weak and that one decission was absolute...Sure i could understand those who wants spears to be like real spear fighting in "real life" and all but thats just being picky.
So i tried it out since i havent before to then finding out that its a damn formidable weapon and one i damn enjoyed playing with to even if they buffed the horses and their armor to oblivion :wink: But its ok since now we sit here discussing if they are weak or not

I see problem going deeper. People come to the Bannerlord with the bulletproof "historical knowledge" gained by watching Lord of The Rings movies and playing Total War and unfortunately also previous instances of MB where cavalry rides armored tanks ramming in to hordes of orcs sending men flaying left and right in to the air in ragdoll animations.

And then they try to the the same in Bannerlord.

And Sturgian veterans don't fly in to the air like orcs under Rohirrim charge.

Then hysteria begins.

And then they blame Bannerlord.

And when they are shown video of a cavalry one shot they close their eyes and ignore it.

I am been constantly accused of pushing historical realism too much in the game. However reality is that generations of players grow up with completely distorted view of history because of the game and film industry. Yes they know it's entertainment. Yes they know it's not real. However at the end they end up forming their opinions based on them anyway. That's how human brain unfortunately works. Therefore I am deeply convinced that game developers have obligation to keep that in mind when making their games. Their "freedom" to invent BS has consequences.

When you make history inspired game or movie and you want to put invented BS in to it for what ever purpose (gameplay for example), you need to make sure it's clearly implemented and understood by player as invented or unhistorical. Same goes for historical movies. Filmmakers will often take liberties with historical facts while giving excuse that it's "artistic" depiction and not documentary. Yes that's true, only problem is that people who watch it won't be able to tell the difference. They won't go to the library or in to the archives after watching the film to find out what is real and what is filmmaker's "creativity". Therefore either film have to try to be as historically accurate as possible or it have to make clear to the audience that it is not historical. The worst possibility is to mix historical facts with fiction. For example like film Kingdom of Haven does. It takes real historical event and figures and mixes them up with complete bull**** and fictional characters. Or with characters from different era. Brain of the viewer won't be able to tell what is and what is not real. It will get fiction associated with facts that he know are historical. As a result fiction will become "real" by association. And that association is usually not conscientious. Viewer does not realize what is going on. Next time topic comes up, he might not realize that while character A is real, character B is fictional and he only saw him in a film. But since A is real and B is now associated with A, B must be also real. He wont recall that association is only through the film.
 
Last edited:

Dr-Shinobi

I see problem going deeper. People come to the Bannerlord with the bulletproof "historical knowledge" gained by watching Lord of The Rings movies and playing Total War and unfortunately also previous instances of MB where cavalry rides armored tanks ramming in to hordes of orcs sending men flaying left and right in to the air in ragdoll animations.

And then they try to the the same in Bannerlord.

And Sturgian veterans don't fly in to the air like orcs under Rohirrim charge.

Then hysteria begins.

And then they blame Bannerlord.

And when they are shown video of a cavalry one shot they close their eyes and ignore it.

I am been constantly accused of pushing historical realism too much in the game. However reality is that generations of players grow up with completely distorted view of history because of the game and film industry. Yes they know it's entertainment. Yes they know it's not real. However at the end they end up forming their opinions based on them anyway. That's how human brain unfortunately works. Therefore I am deeply convinced that game developers have obligation to keep that in mind when making their games. Their "freedom" to invent BS has consequences.

When you make history inspired game or movie and you want to put invented BS in to it for what ever purpose (gameplay for example), you need to make sure it's clearly implemented and understood by player as invented or unhistorical. Same goes for historical movies. Filmmakers will often take liberties with historical facts while giving excuse that it's "artistic" depiction and not documentary. Yes that's true, only problem is that people who watch it won't be able to tell the difference. They won't go to the library or in to the archives after watching the film to find out what is real and what is filmmaker's "creativity". Therefore either film have to try to be as historically accurate as possible or it have to make clear to the audience that it is not historical.
Yep fair enough xD and sums it pretty much when it comes to movie making contra reality
 
I like that cavalry is to be like support for main line (infantry) as was typical for medieval times (same with archers being support unit not Hollywood "riflemen" oneshooting anything visible). In Warband it was just very bad even lightest Khergit Lancers if on open grounds would trample any even Nordic Huscarl army with some casualties unlike Swadian knights would mob them without any losses I guess.

What I do not like is that charge is practically non existent - I mean I do not see coushed lance charges what wouldn´t be a big problem if that spear thrust attacks were more precise. It is just comical how such "profesional" looters can hit you precisely with short weapon runing from the side while you are at max speed having such precise "foot AI" precise and perfectly timing targeting while I have such difficulty to hit target but "mounted" AI being just terible opposite to "foot AI", like 1000 PING delay. Foot AI should be lowered from perfect to average with its precision and timing while mounted AI opposite ofc there is option to increase or decrease diff of game. But even on normal diff I just hate being so often hit by laser targeting looters while AI on horses would probably miss even an elefant (stationary):grin:.

Perhaps there might be some improvement possible through commands like "attack" - charge at max speed while "advance" command would be slower and using 1h weapons (something like Byzantines kataphracts used before Westerners showed them their charge) what would be disasterous if enemy was prepared for them - spears prepared but if that enemy was pinned by your infantry that "advance" which would hit enemy and stayed there to club their heads to oblivion same time not being attacked much by spears for they were engaged already by your infantry then that "advance" would be kind of short wiping. That "attack" command would be best against archers I guess but against good infantry rather advance (from flank or rear ofc) when enemy is pinned by your own infantry.

When thinking about coushed charge perhaps that perk on riding skill for melee cavalry might add that cavalry under command would use coushe charges or perhaps if most cavalry - heavy cavalry group of T6 units would automatically be enough skilled to do that. But still those charges should be made not individually as we have now but as one mounted falanx. I know we do not have one dismounted so to see mounted one is much to dream?.:smile:
 
Last edited:

Dr-Shinobi

It is just comical how such "profesional" looters can hit you precisely with short weapon runing from the side while you are at max speed having such difficulty to hit target but foor "foot" AI with its perfect timing
Can agree to an degree here but its also because youre getting in to close while they are focusing on you. Even if im using my sword i try to keep as much distance as i can, while charging that is . You can couch to but then you really need to rely that youre accurate or else it can hurt. Also keep your eyes out for what type of weapon that (in this case) the looter have, which you prob already knew when it comes to the pitchfork :wink: then you need to be extra careful. I usually avoid spear men since its an big risk but it depends on the situation ofc if they arent really aware and hesitates on another target and so on.
 
Last edited:
Can agree to an degree here but its also because youre getting in to close while they are focusing on you. Even if im using my sword i try to keep as much distance as i can, while charging that is . You can couch to but then you really need to rely that youre accurate or else it can hurt. Also keep your eyes out for what type of weapon that (in this case) the looter have, which you prob already knew when it comes to the pitchfork :wink: then you need to be extra careful. I usually avoid spear men since its an big risk but it depends on the situation ofc if they arent really aware and hesitates on another target and so on.
I do not use coushed attacks for it gives no exp to riding nor spear from my exp, when seeing looter with pitchfork I go close to him blocking his attack and hiting him if having short weapon if I have lance I use overhead attack mostly avoiding his.
 

Dr-Shinobi

I do not use coushed attacks for it gives no exp to riding nor spear from my exp, when seeing looter with pitchfork I go close to him blocking his attack and hiting him if having short weapon if I have lance I use overhead attack mostly avoiding his.
Couching does give xp. Every kill you do with your weapon both gives you riding and polearm/one hand or two hander xp. But yeah that type of attack works to :smile:
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Squire
1: Well if that's how argument works, then you tell me all the battles in the period 900-1100 where cavalry won first.
2: Your argument works both ways.
3: Those battles are perfectly relevant because there was no principal change in how heavy cavalry fought.
4: I said frontal charges against determined and disciplined infantry were usually ineffective.
5: No, Norman cavalry at Hastings did not use couched lance. Holding lance in the underhand grip is not the same as couched lance.
6: Which part of "until Normans fooled English to disband their formation by faking retreat or until English king received arrow in to the head, depending on which source you believe" you did not understand? Norman cavalry did not win the battle of Hastings by charging English infantry, Norman cavalry FLED from English infantry to win.
7: In reality 20,000 Crusader infantry backed by couple of knights mounted on oxes and pack animals have charged Turkish cavalry and light infantry (mostly archers). https://www.historynet.com/the-crucible-of-antioch-the-pivotal-clash-of-the-first-crusade.htm You have misinterpreted the whole battle as 700 Crusader cavalry charge defeating 10,000 Turkish infantry.
8: The first guy who for some irrational reason run up front was bowled over by the knee of the rider. Those spears were not real spears.
9: And heavy cavalry used very long lances. In 1500s, heavy cavalry was at the pike of it's power. As is common with you, you don't know what you're talking about. Armoured cavalry, in the form of the gendarme, was at its highest as a proportion of the total number of combatants in many Renaissance armies, especially in France. Other Western European states also used heavy cavalry very often, such as Spain and the Holy Roman Empire in the Italian Wars. North-Central and Eastern Europe saw the emergence of winged hussars that proved a decisive factor in the territorial gains of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and in its wars with Sweden, Muscovy and the Ottoman Turks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cavalry#Renaissance_to_20th_century France entered the sixteenth century with its gendarme companies being the largest and most respected force of heavy cavalry in Europe, feared for their powerful armament, reckless courage and esprit de corps.[10] As the fifteenth century waned, so did the tactical practices of the Hundred Years War, and the gendarmes of the sixteenth century returned to fighting exclusively on horseback, generally in a very thin line (en haye), usually two or even just one rank deep, so as to maximize the number of lances being set upon the enemy target at once.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_(historical)#Gendarmes_in_battle_in_the_early_sixteenth_century
10: You still failed to explain how impaling itself on a long pike and short pike makes any difference to the horse.
11: No, I know for a fact that it does not take highest-tier Vlandian cavalry multiple attempts to kill the ****tiest, weakest looters in the game. Vlandian banner knight will one shoot any looter, given he have space and terrain to gain decent speed and does not miss.
1: Because you're the one claiming everyone else is wrong and cavalry was terrible, it's up to you to prove your claim, not me.
You have not given even one example of heavy cavalry losing to infantry in the time period Bannerlord is set in.
But I'll gladly answer your request anyway. Here is more proof of heavy cavalry domination on top of what I've already provided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Riade Heavy cavalry decisive charge secures victory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lenzen#Battle Decisive heavy cavalry charge secures victory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lechfeld Decisive victory of an all-heavy cavalry force against a mixed infantry/horse archer army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stilo Although this battle was lost, the heavy cavalry are noted for successfully breaking the enemy's strongest center point where the king's guard were, and they only lost in the end to other cavalry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Olivento Decisive heavy cavalry charge secures victory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montemaggiore "Victory was attributed to the addition of the Norman heavy cavalry."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ménfő (Battle of Menfo if that link doesn't work). "The army quickly fell apart in the face of the German cavalry."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Civitate Heavy cavalry manage to defeat a force of elite heavy infantry twice their size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerami Heavy cavalry defeat a significantly numerically superior force. First charge fails, but second charge successfully decides the battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Langensalza_(1075) Charge "almost instantly" destroys the center of the infantry force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Elster In this unusual case, the cavalry acted as the anvil to the hammer of the infantry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dyrrhachium_(1081)#Byzantine_collapse In this most famous example, later described by Anna Komnena, the Norman cavalry "smashed through the ranks of the Byzantines, and they were irresistible. A Frankish charge could smash through the walls of Byzantium."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alnwick_(1093) Knight charge catches enemy by surprise, finishing them off quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dorylaeum_(1097) Heavy cavalry arrives to rescue the helpless infantry with a successful charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bairén Frontal charge breaks center line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Larissa Historian Robert Holmes states: "The new knightly tactic of charging with the lance couched – tucked firmly under the arm to unite the impact of man and horse – proved a battle-winner."
This is almost every single battle from the 1000s I can find where a cavalry force is mentioned as fighting infantry.
2: Fair enough. In that case, I'll point out that it was originally your argument, since you were the one to bring up intentions in the first place. Moving on.
3: The infantry changed how they fought the heavy cavalry, with much deeper formations and much longer polearms braced on the ground. That's why 1300s and 1500s examples are irrelevant to this discussion, as tactics and equipment were different in the 1000s. The long list of heavy cavalry victories in the 1000s above demonstrates this difference.
4: What you actually said was "Devastating charges happened in the real life much less often then in the Hollywood movies." As you can see from the above list, that is incorrect.
5: You're making the mistake of thinking that because some knights on the Tapestry aren't couching their lances, that means all of them must not be. Actually go back and read my source this time, it talks about how knights are visible on the Tapestry couching their lances.
6: The part where: "Although the feigned flights did not break the lines, they probably thinned out the housecarls in the English shield wall. The housecarls were replaced with members of the fyrd, and the shield wall held."
7: READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE PROPERLY! You are getting the LAKE battle and the SIEGE battles of Antioch confused. The battle of the LAKE of Antioch involved, as correctly reading your own link will tell you, "700 mounted knights", who "charged out with couched lances to strike the Turkish vanguard in the flank, throwing them back in disorder into the main force". The number of 20,000 infantry is from the SIEGE Battle of Antioch, and they were not present for the LAKE Battle of Antioch. Feel free to apologize for telling me I "misinterpreted" something which you actually massively misinterpreted yourself.
8: For the purposes of talking about heavy cavalry, man and rider are considered to be one. A horse can't tell the difference between a prop spear and a real one. It's a pointy stick pointed at them, yet it didn't scare them off riding through that line of infantry.
9: Nowhere in that needlessly long quote is the length of the lances used mentioned. Did you even read that before copypasting it? It's ironic that you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about while you apparently don't even know how to read the things you're talking about!
10: A long pike can be braced on the ground. A short spear can't. If you're not bracing it on the ground, that means you're literally just holding it with your human arms. The enormous impact of a horse running at you full tilt is going to knock the spear away out of your grip, maybe the horse gets hurt in the process but there's no way you are going to hold the spear firmly in place while the horse "impales" itself on it. That's why bracing long pikes on the ground exists, because the ground takes the force of the horse charge.
11: "And does not miss" is one of the biggest problems here. That's why it DOES take them multiple attempts to kill one of the weakest enemies in the game: Accuracy. Even though in real life knights would train from a very young age to be able to hit a target on the ground with a lance.

As I have shown, in real life in the 1000s period Bannerlord is based on, heavy cavalry charges decisively won almost every battle in which they were involved. That on its own justifies buffing Bannerlord's melee cavalry (let alone the fact that melee cavalry being such a poor option is bad for gameplay). Pretty much everything else is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

Dr-Shinobi

I totally agree! I never use spears or melee cavalry now.
Its because you dont know how to use them...but yes if you dont, its better to take what you´re good with. Thats an good lesson in life when it feels like its on the line. Ive posted some vids couple of pages back if you want to learn the basics.

I did plenty of mistakes here with mine and still i only lost 2 after the battle with alot of denars in my pocket....so cant complain because those two had already payed for em selves weeks ago

 
Its because you dont know how to use them...but yes if you dont, its better to take what you´re good with. Thats an good lesson in life when it feels like its on the line. Ive posted some vids couple of pages back if you want to learn the basics.

I did plenty of mistakes here with mine and still i only lost 2 after the battle with alot of denars in my pocket....so cant complain because those two had already payed for em selves weeks ago

I like the music and the spear skills, but the video is very dark. It's hard to see what's going on IMO. Please consider gamma adjustments.

I watched a couple of your cavalry videos. They confirm my reservations about cavalry. From what I can see, you're leading your 15 cavalry around the map, engaging small numbers of enemies, taking out a handful of them while your superior allied army crushes your enemy. Your cavalry doesn't do much for your army, and you die every battle which means waiting a while before you can even do battle again.

Not my first choice of strategies, but I definitely learned more about spear wielding. Thanks for that, and please consider gamma correction for night battles. :smile:
 

Dr-Shinobi

Yeah its Youtube whos putting the darkness down a notch but i can see it on my monitor so you might have to turn things up or get some curtains down :wink:....

As for your other statement its not true. Your not truly watching the vid and strategies as they should be played. Sure its not always perfect as im not really an cavalry guy (more inf) and theres always room for improvement.... but were doing what were supposed to not some crazy hero stuff.....And with this said as if im like an Squire (novice) at cav strat and still can make em do their thing and were making alot of money in the progress...what does that says ?

You havent looked at my commanding vids if you are saying that i all i done is leading a group of cav, which cavs should be doing to add. Pay attention to the kill feed next time and you will see horses pop up now and then. At the same time off course inf will do most but thats because inf also are mostly in the thick of things and have easier time to pick targets or die.... I have pleanty of vids when i see one cav unit tanking like no ones business right in the middle of an angry mob...Does that make them OP then ? no not rly
 
Last edited:
Sure its not always perfect but were doing what were supposed to not some crazy hero stuff.....
Dying every battle but magically resurrecting to fight another day seems like the epitome of crazy hero stuff to me.

Your havent looked at my commanding vids if you are saying that i all i done is leading a group of cav, which cavs should be doing to add.
You're right. I haven't watched all 125 videos. I watched the one suggested to me by you, and I watched the one uploaded right before it.

I'm enjoying watching your other vids. Thanks for sharing your content!
 

Dr-Shinobi

Dying every battle but magically resurrecting to fight another day seems like the epitome of crazy hero stuff to me.

You're right. I haven't watched all 125 videos. I watched the one suggested to me by you, and I watched the one uploaded right before it.

Yes youre right :smile: but its a game though and im happy you enjoyed em. Im wishing there was more people in here sharing though since im curious about their adventures and crazy situations :grin: ps its only 30 cav vids
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Here you can check some videos about cavalry performance:

Vlandian Vanguard:



Imperial Legionary:



By the way, elite infantry has got MUCH better since the last patch thanks to armor buff. Sadly this great improvement is being outshining due some people complaining about outfits and saying that the changes have been crap :-s (Thanks TW, I really appreciate the armor buff).


I have just found a bug and this is the reason because I though that cavalry is currently ok and strong :sad:. It looks like that fast foward (faster time speed) in battles makes cavalry units much stronger than they actually are. I usually use fast forward to test cavalry units because cav battles last for longer (I do not use fast forward when testing archers/infantry). Here you can check the actual performance for cavalry in the same battle which is actually pretty disappointing (I have recorded a lot of battles to prove how fast forward is broken and makes cavalry units stronger). Not even Banner Knights are able to win that battle.


So yes, cavalry is still weak and not worth for the moment. Sorry for the misinformation :sad:.
 
Top Bottom